The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1887-07-30
THE INTELLIeENCER CRITICIZED

EDITOR lNTELLiaEN ckE:-We have exam
ined the criiicIsms contained IN your
las; issus; made .pon Inc statute OF ihe
regard To the sale OF lniux lcatIDS liquors, anu
feel constrained 10 differ with You widely IN
OPINION as to its legal Interpretation Your
statement that the strict ''letIer oil the law
would render 1t unlaw full TO give away such
liquors IN any manner Whatever, and superinduce
the many cnlamities enumerated In yonr eal-
tOrial. Is entirely disingenuous, as you are doubt
less aware OF the rules tor the construction l
and that one OF those rules best kno Sn and uni
versally applied. IS that statutes must De inter,
preted according to the intent and meaning and
not according to The letter: "a thing withln
the intention is within the statute though not
within The letter, aud q thing within the letter Is
not within the statute unless within the snfs0-
H0n - Of the numb.rle5S cases IN lilustrHtiOn
oil this rule 1t Is only necessary to mention two:-
A certain law Of Bolegne, mentioned by Put
tendori 8. c ~ provided that rwnoevef ary ,s
the utmost severity 1t was held not to apply to
a surgeon who opened the VEN Of = person who
/ f. II down In the street with u 1T.
An act Of Congress made 1t a crime TO Inn,
port or bring In any manner into the United
States or territories thereof, from any foreign
kingdom, place or country ANY negro, n,uiatio.
or person Of color, with Intent to mold. sell or
dispose OF such negro, muiatto or person OF
bor." And this act was acjudged in the time OF
slavery not to be violated by conveying slaves
back to be held again in bondage. though the
law OF The continental kingdom made them
tree upon their arrival in Europe, because The
object OF the act was to put an end to the slave
trade, SO that though the Case was within the
letter It was not within the intention or mischief
5s be r snpp1 e. ,srd; u. well s. vs. .e GIg50n .pa IL ret b:
stated concIsely In these terms: That acts to be
punishable must come not only within the
words OF a statute but also within Its reason
and spirif and the msssohif 1t S0s fnfs"ded
10 remedy.
The subject of the enactment under considers-
ton Ia stated in the caption In these words
Observation-Disclosures and sale OF intoxi-
canls.n 1he title OF the act 10. IAN act to pro-
vide Tor the preventing OF the evils OF
ance by local option In any county in this state
and in cities oil twenty-five hundred Inhabitants
OF more by submitting The question oil Prohibh-
quaiIi.d voters OF such county or cily-tO pro-
vide penalties for It's violation and Tor other
p MissosTi TART tnf w. '0n aecs. sS-as, o. pr ros Saa'e that at
no lsw shall be passed except by BILL" and
that mo bill shall contain more tnan one sub
ject. which shall be clearly expressed in It's
title" This provision OF the constitution rem
ders the title OF any act oil the legislature u part
OF the act itself, anu OF the utmost Importance
In It's interpretation or construction + r, II
any matter which Ia foreign or incosnate to the
subject be introduced in an act the act Is I'M
constitutional to the extent OF such foreign or
incognate matter Qn lie Goode, 3 Mo, app
2a6). Hence, as 1t Is a iu'e of construction tnat
res nsagis paIeaf guam pereat. or, in other
worus mat the Whole law shall stand rather
than any part fall, no words or phrases Will he
construed to be disconnected with the subject OF
the law If they will admit OF any other interpre-
thLiOu. IL u LII Jaw 10 cAplS65Su ~
the title, is to provide tor the suppression OF the
sale OF Intoxicating liquors at the option OF Ger
tain localities. As u sale in its legal sense Is q
transaction IN which the purchase price is money
only, and as numerous evasions OF the law have
been attempted, such rs permitting the custom
er 10 help himself and drop d piece o. money In
a hole III TIE table. selling u cracker for ter
cents and giving n glass Of4IQuOI, giving away
intoxicating drInks and selling cigars IL a pr.c.
which Will compensate Tor the liquor, etc , il
was necessary tuat the legislature should adopt
some auxiliary phrase, sucn as give away oil
barter. to cover these cases. In this sense tn,
words are cognate 10 the subject expressed IL
the title, but In any other The wOr,ts '.givs
away are entirely foreign to that subject ant
| cannot be cunsti ued TO he within the intention
in the courts OF Mississippi. Maryland. ILLINOIS,
and Indiana, in which tue general term CIV
In this manner. Danmer vs.: State, So Miss.
1871. Parkinson vs.; Stats, IA Md; .ls4. Aibrech
vs.. People. IS IL. 5lo bloomington VS.
the rules Of construction to every statute Is eve
a matter Of Importance. To arrive at the mean
ing OF q law, we are 10 weigh Its terms and ez
anime its title In order to judge oil its provision
by its object apd-the whole context, and not Il
t extend It's Interpretation to what would appea
+ different from ITS Intention. The law delight
In The life. liberty and happiness d The cilIz .ns
EnactmeEts which take away common rights o
r create hardshIps. 1t CONSTITUTES strictly. Law
when restrain Natural liberty, as those whic
, prohibit that which In ltselI is not illicit, o
g which derrogate from those common lIOertie
which, In a state Of nature, would be universe
. SAySyS@ y AAohkihA oh&hb NV ~ NC ~
. preted 50 as to extend their provisions to Cast
u which they do not embrace. TO give away in
= toxicatiny liquors In contemplation Of the CIV
5 law has ever been u common right. To sell il
D IS Q beverage, has been decided by our suprem
court to have been, at ali times, i!umoral
:. State OF Mo. vs.. Hudson, 70 Mo-, 4. 3uZ, an
cases cited.
e As intempersnce IS the evil specified In til
/ title of the law. and rs the sale OF lntoxicatln
liquors BY druggists and pharmacists tor II
purposes of medicine and ART Is not wi hin II
mischief which The law seeks to remedy, it wi
scarcely be commended by anyone who is famill,
, with the rules of construction that the existir
laws regulating such sales by physleiuns ar
druggists are affected by this statute. A sLatu
!. Can be repealed Gully by an express provision
a u subsequent law or by necessary Implicatio,
" A ropeaI by implication Is not favored; the lea
IT ing OF the courts is against the dc ctrine. To r
|. peal u Statute by implication there must be sut
- a positive repuguancy between the provisIol
q OF the new law and the old that they cannot star
IT together or be consistently reconcIled. Cool v
:, Smith. l Black, 400 Wood VS. u. $, IL Pei
342. The more natural il not necessary lnfe
q eDce in all such Cases Is that the Legislature II
az tended the new law to be auxiliary to and IN a
OF the old law. there should he, therefore,
) manifest and total repugnancy in the provision
}. OF the new law to l,aa to the conclusion tn
4 the later law abrogated or Was designed to a
~ rogste the former. Davis VS.. Fairborn,
* How 63S. 1t Will be observed that there is
repeating clause to this law, as is almost IN
versal when 1t is the intention Of The legislatu
to change existing laws.
AENGPaON RYLAND,
+ WILLIAM YOUNG,